Anton Posadsky.

Green Movement in the Civil War in Russia. Peasants' Front between Reds and Whites. 1918-1922

The latest research on the history of Russia

The Latest Studies in the History of Russia series was founded in 2016.

Design by the artist E.Yu. Shurlapova

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 16-41-93579)

Introduction 1
The monograph was prepared with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation, project No. 16–41 -93579. The author is grateful to F.A. Gushchin (Moscow) for the opportunity to get acquainted with a number of memoirs.

Revolution and internecine strife are always very flowery, in every sense of the word. Vivid vocabulary, aggressive jargon, expressive names and self-names, a real feast of slogans, banners, speeches and banners. Suffice it to recall the names of the parts, for example, in the American Civil War. The southerners had "Lincoln assassins", all kinds of "bulldogs", "threshers", "yellow jackets", etc., the northerners had a grandiose sinister anaconda plan. The civil war in Russia could not be an exception, especially since in a country just approaching universal schooling, visual perception and marking meant a lot. No wonder the romantics of the world revolution expected so much from the cinema. An incredibly expressive and understandable language has been found! The sound once again killed the aggressively revolutionary dream: the films began to speak in different languages, the dialogue replaced the irresistible power of the living poster.

Already in the revolutionary months of 1917, the banners of shock units and death units provided such expressive material that an interesting candidate's dissertation was successfully defended on them. It happened that a unit with the most modest real combat strength had a bright banner.

The autumn of 1917 finally determined the names of the main characters - the Reds and the Whites. The Red Guard, and soon the army was opposed by the Whites - the White Guards. The name "White Guard" itself is believed to have been adopted by one of the detachments in the Moscow battles in late October - early November. Although the logic of the development of the revolution suggested an answer even without this initiative. Red has long been the color of rebellion, revolution, barricades. White is the color of order, law, purity. Although the history of revolutions knows other combinations. In France, white and blue fought, under this name one of the novels by A. Dumas from his revolutionary series came out. The blue semi-brigades became the symbol of the victorious young revolutionary French army.

In the picture of the unfolding Civil War in Russia, along with the "basic" colors, others were woven. Anarchist detachments called themselves the Black Guard. Thousands of Black Guards fought in the southern direction in 1918, being very wary of their red comrades.

Until the fights of the early 1930s, the self-name of the rebels "black partisans" appeared. In the Orenburg region, even the Blue Army is known among many insurgent anti-Bolshevik formations. "Colored", almost officially, will be called the most cohesive and combat-ready white units in the South - the famous Kornilovites, Alekseyevites, Markovites and Drozdovites. They got their name from the color of their shoulder straps.

Color markings were also actively used in propaganda. In the leaflet of the headquarters of the recreated North Caucasian Military District in the spring of 1920, “yellow bandits” stood out - these are the sons of offended kulaks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, fathers, Makhnovists, Maslaks, Antonovites and other comrades-in-arms and hangers-on of the bourgeois counter-revolution, bandits “black”, "white", "brown" 2 .

However, the most famous third color in the Civil War remained green. The Greens became a significant force at some stages of the Civil War. Depending on the inclination of specific green formations to support one or another "official" side, white-green or red-green appeared. Although these designations could only fix a temporary, momentary tactical line or behavior dictated by circumstances, and not a clear political position.

A civil war in a large country invariably creates some main subjects of confrontation and a significant number of intermediate or peripheral forces. For example, the American Civil War drew the Indian population into its orbit, Indian formations appeared both on the side of the northerners and on the side of the southerners; there were states that were neutral. Many colors were also indicated in civil wars, for example, in multinational Spain in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Civil War in Russia, the main subjects of confrontation crystallized rather quickly. However, within the white and red camps, there were often very serious contradictions, not even so much of a political nature as at the level of political emotions. The Red partisans did not tolerate commissars, the White Cossacks did not trust the officers, etc. In addition, new state formations were structured with more or less success on the national outskirts, striving primarily to acquire their own armed forces. All this made the overall picture of the struggle extremely variegated and dynamically changing. Finally, always active minorities fight, they rouse broader masses of fellow citizens. In peasant (and landslide re-peasantization in 1917-1920 due to land redistribution and rapid deindustrialization) Russia, the main character in any lengthy struggle was the peasant. Therefore, the peasant in the armies of the opposing sides, in the rebels, in the deserters - in any state created by a large-scale internal war - already showed a very significant value by his mass character alone. The Greens became one of the forms of peasant participation in the events of the Civil War.

The Greens had obvious antecedents. The peasant always suffers from war, often drawn into it out of necessity, either incurring a duty in favor of the state, or in defending his home. If we dare to make far-flung analogies, we can recall how the military successes of the French during the Hundred Years War in the 1360s and 1370s grew out of the need for self-defense and the emerging national feeling. and in the era of Joan of Arc, successes and innovations in the military art of the Dutch gezes at the end of the 16th century with their “transfer” through the Swedes to the Russian militias of the Time of Troubles, led by M. Skopin-Shuisky. However, the era of modern times has already separated the combat capabilities of the regular army and any improvised rebel formations too far. Probably, this situation was most clearly demonstrated by the epic of clobmen - "clubmen" - during the years of civil wars in England in the 17th century.

Cavalier royalists fought the parliamentary armies. The fight was fought with varying success. However, any internal war primarily hits the non-belligerents. The intemperate armies of both sides laid a heavy burden on the peasant population. In response, the cudgels rose. The movement was not widespread. It was located in several counties. In the domestic literature, the most detailed presentation of this epic remains the long-standing work of Professor S.I. Arkhangelsk.

The activity of klobmen is one of the stages in the development of the peasant movement in England during the civil wars of the 17th century. The peak of development of this self-defense movement came in the spring - autumn of 1645, although evidence of local armed formations is known almost from the beginning of hostilities, as well as later, outside of 1645.

The relationship between the armed peasants and the main active forces of civil strife - gentlemen and supporters of parliament is indicative. Let's highlight some plots that are interesting for our topic.

Clobmen are mostly villagers who have organized to resist looting and enforce peace on opposing sides.

Klobmeny had their own territory - this is primarily the counties of South-West England and Wales. These territories mostly stood for the king. At the same time, the movement also spread beyond the base territory, covering, at its peak, more than a quarter of the territory of England. Klobmen seemed to "not notice" the Civil War, expressing their readiness to feed any garrisons so that they would not act outrageously, expressing in petitions reverence for the royal power and respect for parliament. At the same time, the excesses of the troops caused a rebuff, and sometimes quite effective. Ordinary klobmen were mostly rural residents, although nobles, priests, and a significant number of townspeople are found in their leadership. In different counties there were different moods and motivations to participate in the Clobmen movement. This is due to the difference in socio-economic status. Everyone suffered from the war, but patriarchal Wales and the economically developed, woolen counties of England paint a different picture.

In 1645 there were about 50,000 clobmen. This number exceeded the royal armed forces - about 40 thousand, and slightly inferior to the parliamentary (60-70 thousand).

It is interesting that both the king and parliament tried to win the clubmen over to their side. First of all, there were promises to curb the predatory inclinations of the troops. At the same time, both sides sought to destroy the klobman organization. Both the Chevalier Lord Goring and the Parliamentary general Fairfax alike forbade Clobmen meetings. Apparently, the understanding that klobmen, in their further development, are capable of growing into some kind of third force, existed both on the side of the king and on the side of parliament, and caused opposition. Both needed a resource, not an ally with their own interests.

It is believed that by the end of 1645 the movement of klobmen was largely eliminated by the efforts of parliamentary troops under the command of Fairfax. At the same time, organizations of many thousands, even relatively weakly structured ones, could not disappear overnight. Indeed, already in the spring of 1649, at a new stage in the mass movement, a case was recorded of the arrival of an impressive detachment of clobmen from the county of Somerset to help the Levellers 3 .

For all the riskiness of analogies in three centuries, we note the plots themselves, which are similar in the civil wars in England and Russia. First, the grassroots mass movement is inclined towards a certain independence, although it is quite ready to listen to both "main" sides of the struggle. Secondly, it is territorially localized, although it tends to expand into neighboring territories. Thirdly, local interests prevail in motives, primarily the tasks of self-defense from ruin and excesses. Fourthly, it is the real or potential independence of the insurgent movement that causes concern of the main active forces of the civil war and the desire to liquidate it or integrate it into their armed structures.

Finally, the Russian Civil War unfolded when a great civil strife with active peasant participation was burning out on another continent - in Mexico. A comparative study of the civil war in an American country and in Russia has obvious scientific prospects. In fact, the activities of the peasant armies of Zapata and Villa provide rich and picturesque material for the study of the insurgent peasantry. However, it is more important for us that this analogy was already visible to contemporaries. The well-known publicist V. Vetlugin in 1919 wrote about “Mexican Ukraine” in the white press, the image of Mexico also appears in his book of essays “Adventurers of the Civil War”, published in 1921. evoked such associations. True, in the "green" areas of "Mexico" there were relatively few, this is more an affiliation of the steppe chieftain.

As early as 1919, the term "political banditry" appeared in the RSFSR to designate insurrection and anti-Bolshevik insurrectionary struggle, which became firmly and permanently included in historiography. At the same time, the main subject of this banditry was the kulaks. This evaluation standard was extended to situations of other civil wars, as a result of which the communists came to power. Thus, a book on the history of China published in the USSR in 1951 reported that in 1949 there were still a million "Kuomintang bandits" in the PRC. But by the first anniversary of the republic, the number of "bandits" had dropped to 200,000 4 . In the years of perestroika, this story caused controversy: “rebels” or “bandits”? The propensity for one or another designation determined the research and civic position of the writer.

The "big" civil war did not arouse as much attention among analysts of the Russian diaspora as the initial volunteer period. This is clearly seen in the well-known works of N.N. Golovin and A.A. Zaitsov. Accordingly, the green movement was not in the focus of attention. It is significant that the late Soviet book about the red partisans has nothing to do with the green movement, even the red-green one. At the same time, for example, in the Belarusian provinces, the maximum number, which hardly corresponds to reality, of partisans of a communist orientation is shown 5 . In a recent fundamental attempt to present a non-communist view of Russian history 6, the green movement is also not specifically singled out.

The green movement is sometimes interpreted as broadly as possible, as any armed struggle within the framework of the Civil War outside the white, red and national formations. So, A.A. Shtyrbul writes about "a broad and numerous, albeit scattered, all-Russian partisan-insurgent movement of the greens." He draws attention to the fact that anarchists played a significant role in this movement, and also to the fact that for the majority of representatives of this environment, whites were “more unacceptable” than reds. N. Makhno 7 is cited as an example. R.V. Daniele made an attempt to give a comparative analysis of civil wars and their dynamics. In his opinion, the Russian revolutionary peasantry, alienated by the policy of requisitioning, "became a free political force in many parts of the country", opposing the Whites and the Reds, and this situation was most dramatically manifested in Nestor Makhno's "Green Movement" in Ukraine. M.A. Drobov considers the military aspects of partisanship and small war. He analyzes in detail the red insurrection of the Civil War. The Greens for him are primarily an anti-White Guard force. “Among the “greens” it is necessary to distinguish between bandit gangs, self-seekers, various types of criminal punks who had nothing to do with the insurrection, and groups of poor peasants and workers scattered by whites and interventionists. It was these last elements ... having no connection either with the Red Army or with the party organization, independently organized detachments with the aim of harming the whites at every opportunity. M. Frenkin writes about the operations of the Greens in Syzran and other counties of the Simbirsk province, in a number of counties of Nizhny Novgorod and Smolensk, in the Kazan and Ryazan provinces, and clusters of Greens in Belarus with its vast forest and swampy areas 10 . At the same time, the name "green" for, for example, the Kazan or Simbirsk regions is uncharacteristic. An expanded understanding of the green movement is also inherent in historical journalism 11 .

T.V. played an important role in the study of peasant participation in the Civil War. Osipov. She was one of the first to raise the subject of the subjectivity of the peasantry in the internecine war 12 . In subsequent works by this author 13 a picture of peasant participation in the revolutionary and military events of 1917–1920 is developed. T.V. Osipova focused on the fact that the protest movement of the Great Russian peasantry was not noticed in Western literature, but it was, and was massive.

The well-known essay on peasant uprisings by M. Frenkin, of course, also concerns the theme of the Greens. He quite correctly assesses the green movement as a specific form of peasant struggle that appeared in 1919, that is, as a kind of innovation in the peasant struggle with power. With this movement, he connects the active work of the peasants in the destruction of Soviet farms during the Mamontov raid 14 . M. Frenkin is right from the point of view of the general logic of the peasant struggle. At the same time, one should carefully accept his value judgments about the unchanged multi-thousand greens. At times, conscious distortions in this matter have given rise to a whole tradition of incorrect perception. So, E.G. Renev testified that the memoirs of Colonel Fedichkin about the Izhevsk-Botkin uprising, published in Abroad, were seriously edited by the editors of the publication with a deliberate distortion of the content. As a result, instead of peasant detachments of one hundred people who supported the workers' uprising in the Vyatka province, ten thousand detachments appeared in the publication 15 . M. Bernshtam, in his work, proceeded from the published version and counted active fighters on the side of the rebels, reaching up to a quarter of a million people 16 . On the other hand, a small active detachment could operate successfully with the total support and solidarity of the local population, sometimes quite an impressive neighborhood. Therefore, when counting insurgent, lightly armed and poorly organized (in the military sense of the word) forces, it may be appropriate to estimate not only the number of combatants, but also the total population involved in an uprising or other protest movement.

In 2002, two dissertations were defended on the military-political activity of the peasantry in the Civil War, specifically addressing the issues of the green movement. These are the works of V.L. Telitsyn and P.A. Pharmacist 17 . Each of them contains a separate plot dedicated to the "Zelenovshchina" of 1919. 18 The authors of these plots published 19 . P. Aptekar gives a general outline of the green uprisings, V. Telitsyn actively used Tver material.

The green movement in the last two and a half decades has been actively studied in the regions. Some plots are well developed with the use of local funds of Soviet institutions, archival and investigative files. S. Khlamov explores the history of the most organized Vladimir greens operating in the Yuryevsky (Yuryev-Polsky) district. S.V. Zavyalova studies the Kostroma Zelenovshchina in the Varnavinsky and Vetluzhsky districts, including the Urensky region, as an integral part of the insurrection in these regions, which began in the summer of 1918. 20 A.Yu. Danilov offers a detailed picture of the performances of the Yaroslavl Greens, primarily in Danilovsky and Lyubimsky, as well as Poshekhonsky districts 21 . In the Yaroslavl region, the activities of the law enforcement and punitive system are being actively and successfully studied, including in the early Soviet period 22 . Departmental historiography raises important questions, such as the motives for brutality in the suppression of the green movement. M. Lapshina clarified in detail a number of plots of the Kostroma Zelenovshchina 23 . According to Tver speeches both in 1918 and 1919. K.I. has been working productively in recent years. Sokolov 24 . The largest green uprising in Spas-Yesenovichi caused a detailed reconstructive analysis of the Vyshnevolotsk local historian E.I. Stupkina 25 . Ryazan authors formed a fairly detailed picture of the so-called Ogoltsovshchina - the struggle of an active rebel group in the Riga district. It was headed by successively different people, the most famous figure of them is Ogoltsov, who actually raised a rather massive green movement in several volosts, and the most interesting one was S. Nikushin. G.K. is actively working on this topic. Goltseva 26 . S.V. Yarov proposed a typology of the uprisings of 1918–1919. on the materials of the North-West of Russia 27 . In 1919, a young researcher M.V. was actively working in the Pskov region. Vasiliev 28 . The Prikhoperskaya Zelenovshchina is studied by the Balashov researcher A.O. Bulgakov, who conducts, in particular, field exploratory research 29 , the author of the present book 30 published a voluminous study on this region. Northern material in a significant number of works was worked out by V.A. Sablin, T.I. Troshina, M.V. Taskaev and other researchers 31 . Kaluga local historian K.M. Afanasiev built a documentary chronicle of provincial life during the years of war communism, touching, of course, on the subject of desertion and its attendant 32 . A significant array of materials on the insurrectionary, including the green, movement during the years of the Civil War was published in a series of collections under our editorship 33 .

At the same time, some stories remain in the shadows due to the lack of professional research "hands".

Thus, the Zhigalovshchina, a major movement raised in 1918 in the Porechensky (Soviet Demidovsky) district of the Smolensk province, which had a long history, has been little studied. Three Zhigalov (Zhegalov) brothers stood at the origins of the insurrectionary movement. The active green movement in the Novgorod province remains in the shadow.

The green movement is best known as a more or less reflected position of the "third force" in the Black Sea province. There are Soviet memoirs on this plot, there are many references in the memoirs of the white side. The epic, which is rare for insurgent plots, was described by one of the initiators of the case, Guards officer Voronovich, who published a book of documents on the topic. In modern historiography, a comprehensive study conducted by the Sochi researcher A.A. Cherkasov 35, and the work of N.D. Karpova 36 .

Belarusian chieftains of national orientation have their share of attention in Belarusian historiography, first of all, the names of N. Stuzhinskaya and V. Lyakhovsky should be mentioned.

The study of the green movement cannot be named among the priority topics of Western historiography of the Russian Civil War. However, there is an interesting work directly devoted to this plot. This is an article by E. Landis 37 , the author of the English-language monograph "Bandits and Partisans", dedicated to the Tambov uprising of 1920-1921. Landis argues in terms of "collective identity" and rightly connects the green movement with mobilizations and desertions. He correctly points out that the green army is a collective name.

During the years of the Civil War, people were originally called "green", they evaded military service and hid in the forests (hence the name). This phenomenon acquired a mass character in the summer of 1918, when the forced mobilization of the population was launched. Then this name was assigned to irregular armed formations, consisting mainly of peasants, who equally opposed both the Reds and the Whites, or could temporarily support one of the parties, waging a guerrilla war.

Some Greens fought under their own banners - green, black-green, red-green or black. The flag of the anarchists of Nestor Makhno was a black cloth with a skull and crossbones and the slogan: "Freedom or death."

Among the detachments of the greens, one could meet peasants driven from their places by the Reds or Whites and evading mobilization, and ordinary bandits, and anarchists. Anarchist ideology was adhered to by the leaders of the largest association of greens - the so-called. Rebel army of Ukraine. And it was precisely with anarchism that this movement was most closely associated.

By the time of the first (1905) Russian revolution in anarchism, three main directions were clearly defined: anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-individualism, with each of them having smaller factions.

On the eve of the revolution of 1905, most anarchists were adherents of anarcho-communism. Their main organization was "Bread and Will" headquartered in Geneva. P. A. Kropotkin was the main ideologist of the Khlebovolets. Their program included the following:

The purpose of the action of the anarchists was declared a "social revolution", that is, the complete destruction of capitalism and the state and their replacement by anarchist communism.

The beginning of the revolution was to be "a general strike of the dispossessed both in cities and in the countryside."

The main methods of struggle in Russia were proclaimed "uprising and direct attack, both mass and personal, against the oppressors and exploiters." The question of the use of personal terrorist acts was to be decided only by local residents, depending on the specific situation.

The form of organization of the anarchists was to be “a voluntary agreement of individuals in groups and groups among themselves.

Anarchists rejected the possibility of their entry into any governing bodies (the State Duma or the Constituent Assembly), as well as the possibility of cooperation between anarchists and other political parties or movements.

Essential for the Khlebovoltsy was the question of the future society, created on the model of anarcho-communism. Supporters of Kropotkin imagined the future society as a union or federation of free communities, united by a free contract, where a person, freed from the guardianship of the state, would receive unlimited opportunities for development. For the planned development of the economy, Kropotkin proposed to decentralize industry. In the agrarian question, Kropotkin and his associates considered it necessary to transfer all the land seized as a result of the uprising to the people, to those who cultivate it themselves, but not to personal possession, but to the community.

In the conditions of the revolution of 1905-07. in Russian anarcho-communism, several more currents were formed:

Headless . This trend was based on the preaching of terror and robberies as ways to fight the autocracy and the denial of any moral foundations of society. They wanted to destroy the autocracy by means of a "bloody massacre" with those in power.

In the autumn of 1905, Chernoznamenets (named after the color of the banners). In the revolution of 1905-07. this trend played one of the leading roles. The social base of the Chernoznamentsy was made up of individual representatives of the intelligentsia, part of the proletariat and artisan workers. They considered their main task to be the creation of a broad mass anarchist movement, the establishment of links with all areas of anarchism. In the course of hostilities at the end of 1905, the Chernoznamentsy split into "unmotivated" terrorists and communist anarchists. The former considered the organization of "unmotivated anti-bourgeois terror" as the main goal, while the communist anarchists spoke in favor of combining an anti-bourgeois war with a series of partial uprisings.

Anarcho-syndicalists . The syndicalists considered the main goal of their activity to be the complete, all-round liberation of labor from all forms of exploitation and the creation of free professional associations of workers as the main and highest form of their organization.

Of all the types of struggle, the syndicalists recognized only the direct struggle of the workers against capital, as well as the boycott, strikes, destruction of property (sabotage) and violence against the capitalists.

Following these ideals led the syndicalists to the idea of ​​a "non-party workers' congress", as well as to agitation for the creation of an all-Russian workers' party from "proletarians, regardless of existing party divisions and views." Some of these ideas were adopted from the syndicalists by the Mensheviks.

In Russia, by the beginning of the first Russian revolution, there is also anarcho-individualism (individualist anarchism), which took as a basis the absolute freedom of the individual "as the starting point and the final ideal."

Varieties of individualistic anarchism also took shape:

Mystical anarchism is a movement aimed not at social transformations, but at "a special kind of spirituality." Mystic-anarchists were based on Gnostic teachings (or rather, on their own understanding), they denied the institutions of the church, and preached a one-man path to God.

Association anarchism. He was represented in Russia in the person of Lev Chernov (pseudonym P. D. Turchaninov), who took as a basis the works of Stirner, Proudhon and the American anarchist V. R. Tekker. Turchaninov advocated the creation of a political association of manufacturers. He considered systematic terror to be the main method of struggle.

Makhaevtsy (Mahaevists). The Makhaevites expressed a hostile attitude towards the intelligentsia, power and capital. The creator and theorist of the trend was the Polish revolutionary Ya. V. Makhaisky.

In the wake of the rising revolution, the anarchists began to take more active steps. Seeking to expand their influence on the masses, they organized printing houses, published brochures and leaflets. In an effort to tear the working class away from the Marxists, the anarchists came out with all sorts of attacks on the Bolsheviks. Denying the need for any power at all, the anarchists opposed the Bolsheviks' demands for a provisional revolutionary government.

In the pages of the anarchist press, the tactics of anarchism were characterized as a constant rebellion, a continuous uprising against the existing social and state order. Anarchists often called on the people to prepare for an armed uprising. Anarchist fighting squads carried out the so-called "unmotivated" terror. On December 17, 1905, anarchists in Odessa threw 5 bombs at Libman's cafe. Terrorist acts were committed by anarchists in Moscow, in the Urals, in Central Asia. The Yekaterinoslav anarchists were especially active (about 70 acts). During the years of the first Russian revolution, the tactics of political and economic terror among the anarchists often resulted in robberies. Due to them, some anarchist groups created the so-called "combat cash funds", from which part of the money was given to the workers. In 1905-07. quite a few criminal elements joined anarchism, trying to cover up their activities in this way.

The ideologists of anarchism hoped that the expansion of the network of anarchist organizations in 1905-07. will accelerate the introduction into the consciousness of the masses (and primarily of the working class) of the ideas of anarchism.

In 1914 the First World War broke out. It also caused a split among the anarchists into social patriots (led by Kropotkin) and internationalists. Kropotkin departed from his views and founded a group of "anarcho-trenchers". Anarchists who disagreed with him formed an international movement, but they were too few to have a serious influence on the masses. In the years between the two revolutions, syndicalists became more active, publishing leaflets and verbally calling on citizens to open struggle.

Anarcho-communists in the period 1905-1917 went through several splits. From the orthodox supporters of anarcho-communism, the so-called anarcho-cooperators separated. They considered it possible to move from capitalism to communism immediately, bypassing any transitional stages.

The center for gathering forces of anarcho-communists was the Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups. The most important thing during the period of the revolution was the First Congress of Anarcho-Communists.

Anarcho-syndicalists acted more energetically than other trends. Unlike the anarcho-communists, the syndicalists constantly rotated in the working environment, they knew better the demands and needs of the working people. In their opinion, the day after the social revolution, state and political power should be destroyed and a new society should be created under the leadership of a federation of syndicates, responsible for organizing production and distribution.

In 1918 the so-called anarcho-federalists separated from the syndicalists. They considered themselves adherents of "pure syndicalism" and, in their opinion, social life after a social upheaval should be arranged by uniting individuals on the basis of an agreement or agreement in communes.

In addition to the above, there were also many small, scattered groups of individualist anarchists.

Immediately after the February events (March 1, 1917), anarchists issued a number of leaflets in which they expressed their opinion on the events that had taken place. Below are excerpts from the text of the leaflet of the United Organization of Petrograd Anarchists:

“The heroic efforts of the soldiers and the people overthrew the power of Tsar Nikolai Romanov and his guardsmen. The centuries-old fetters that tormented the soul and body of the people are torn.

Before us, comrades, there is a great task: to create a new beautiful life on the principles of freedom and equality […].

We, anarchists and maximalists, say that the masses of the people, organizing themselves in unions, will be able to take the matter of production and distribution into their own hands and establish an order that ensures real freedom, that the workers do not need any power, they do not need courts, prisons, police.

But, pointing out our goals, we anarchists, in view of the exceptional conditions of the moment, ... will go along with the revolutionary government in its struggle against the old power, until our enemy is crushed ...

Long live the social revolution."

Subsequently, the anarchists began to sharply criticize the Provisional Government and other authorities.

The political activity of the anarchists between the February and October revolutions was mainly reduced to an attempt to speed up the course of events - to carry out an immediate social revolution. This is what basically distinguished their program from the programs of other Social Democratic parties.

Anarchists launched their propaganda in Petrograd, Moscow, Kyiv, Rostov and other cities. Clubs were created that became centers of propaganda. Anarchist leaders gave lectures at industrial enterprises, in military units and on ships, recruiting sailors and soldiers to join their organizations. Anarchists staged rallies on the streets of cities. These groups were mostly small in number, but noticeable.

In March 1917, the anarchists of Petrograd held 3 meetings. It was decided to conduct active propaganda, but not to take any action.

The second meeting of the Petrograd anarchists took place on March 2. It adopted the following requirements:

Anarchists say:

1. All adherents of the old power must be immediately removed from their places.

2. All orders of the new reactionary government, representing a danger to freedom - to cancel.

3. Immediate reprisal against the ministers of the old government.

4. Realization of real freedom of speech and press.

5. Issuance of weapons and ammunition to all combat groups and organizations.

6. Financial support for our comrades who have been released from prison.”

At the third meeting, held on March 4, 1917, reports were heard on the activities of anarchist groups in Petrograd. Requirements corrected and approved:

The right of representation from the organization of anarchists in Petrograd in the Soviet of Workers and Soldiers' Deputies;

Freedom of the press for all anarchist publications;

Immediate support for those released from prison;

The right to carry and generally carry any kind of weapon.

On tactical issues, anarchists after February divided into two camps - anarcho-rebels (the majority of anarchists) and "peaceful" anarchists. The rebels offered to immediately raise an armed uprising, overthrow the Provisional Government and immediately establish a powerless society. However, the people for the most part did not support them. "Peaceful" anarchists persuaded the workers not to take up arms, offering to leave the existing order for the time being. P. Kropotkin also joined them.

Interestingly, if practically no one supported the rebels, then the views of "peaceful" anarchists were shared by other political parties and movements. In their leaflets, even the party of the Cadets cited some sayings of P. A. Kropotkin.

Anarchists participated in all major rallies, and often served as their initiators. On April 20, the workers of Petrograd spontaneously took to the streets, protesting against the imperialist policy of the Provisional Government. Rallies were held in all squares of the city. On Theater Square there was an anarchist tribune, decorated with black flags. The anarchists demanded the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government.

As early as March 1917, the anarchists began to take active steps to free their brethren from prison. But along with political prisoners, they were leaving prisons

so do criminals. The anarchist press did not leave this unattended:

“We see that the death penalty has been abolished for crowned and titled criminals: the king of ministers, generals, and criminals can be dealt with like mad dogs without any ceremony called a court. … Real criminals, serfs of the old government, receive amnesties, are restored in their rights, take an oath to the new government and receive appointments […].

The most inveterate villain and criminal did not do even a hundredth of the harm that the former arbiters of the fate of Russia brought […].

We must come to the aid of criminals and fraternally extend a hand to them as victims of social injustice.”

In April, a declaration of anarchist groups was adopted in Moscow, which was published not only in Moscow, but also in the print media of many Russian cities:

1. Anarchist socialism is fighting to replace the power of class domination with an international union of free and equal workers in order to organize world production.

2. In order to strengthen anarchist organizations and develop anarcho-socialist thought, continue the struggle for political freedoms.

3. Conducting anarchist propaganda and organizing the revolutionary masses.

4. Considering the world war as imperialist, anarchist socialism seeks to end it through the labors of the proletariat.

5. Anarchist socialism calls on the masses to refrain from participating in non-proletarian organizations - trade unions, councils of workers' and soldiers' deputies.

6. Relying solely on the revolutionary initiative of the masses, anarchist socialism advances the general strike of the workers and the general strike of the soldiers as a transitional stage to the direct seizure by the organized proletariat of the instruments and means of government.

7. Anarchist socialism calls on the masses to organize anarchist groups in industrial and transport enterprises in order to form an anarchist international […].

In May, anarchists staged two armed demonstrations. Their speakers called for terror and anarchy. Using the dissatisfaction of the working people with the policy of the Provisional Government, the anarchist leaders went over to hostilities in order to provoke armed uprisings.

In June 1917, the anarchists seized all the premises of the Russkaya Volya newspaper - the office, the editorial office, and the printing house. The Provisional Government sent a detachment of troops. After long negotiations, the anarchists surrendered. Most of them were subsequently found not guilty and released.

On June 7, in response to the seizure of the printing house, the Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government, N.P. Pereverzev, gave the order to clear the Durnovo dacha, where, in addition to the anarchists, the Prosvet workers' club and the board of trade unions of the Vyborg side were located. A wave of indignation and protest arose. On the same day, four enterprises of the Vyborg side began strikes, and by June 8 their number had increased to 28 factories. The provisional government retreated.

On June 9, at the Durnovo dacha, the anarchists convened a conference attended by representatives of 95 factories and military units of Petrograd. At the initiative of the organizers, a "Provisional Revolutionary Committee" was created, which included representatives of some factories and military units. The anarchists decided on June 10 to seize several printing houses and premises. They were supported by separate groups of workers. But the Bolsheviks' cancellation of the demonstration scheduled for that day frustrated their plans.

But in the demonstration held on June 18, the anarchists nevertheless took part. By one o'clock the anarchists approached the Campus de Mars, carrying several black banners with anarchist slogans. During the demonstration, the anarchists raided the Kresty prison, where their like-minded people were imprisoned. A group of 50-75 people raided the prison. The raiders released 7 people: the anarchists Khaustov (former editor of the Okopnaya Pravda newspaper), Muller, Gusev, Strelchenko and several criminals. Along with the anarchists, the Bolshevik party was also accused of the raid on the "Crosses".

The situation around Durnovo's dacha sharply worsened again. On June 19, a Cossack hundred and an infantry battalion with an armored vehicle, led by the Minister of Justice P. Pereverzev, prosecutor R. Karinsky and General P. Polovtsev, went to the dacha, demanding the extradition of those released from prison. Anarchists at the dacha tried to resist. They threw a grenade, but it did not explode. As a result of a clash with the troops, the anarchist Asin was killed (possibly committed suicide), 59 people were arrested. To the great regret of the authorities, they did not find the Bolsheviks there. The news of the pogrom at Durnovo's dacha raised the entire Vyborg side to its feet. On the same day, workers from four factories went on strike. The meetings were quite stormy, but soon the workers calmed down.

In protest against the pogrom, the anarchists tried to bring the 1st machine gun regiment to the streets. But the soldiers answered the anarchists with a refusal: “We do not share the views or actions of the anarchists and are not inclined to support them, but at the same time we do not approve of the reprisals of the authorities against anarchists and are ready to defend freedom from the internal enemy”.

In July 1917, the political situation in Petrograd deteriorated greatly. Messages came to Petrograd about the failure of the offensive of the Russian army at the front. This caused a government crisis. All the Cadet ministers of the Provisional Government resigned.

The anarchists, assessing the situation, decided to act. On July 2, at the Durnovo dacha, the leaders of the Petrograd Federation of Communist Anarchists held a secret meeting, at which they decided to mobilize their forces and call on the people to an armed uprising under the slogans: “Down with the Provisional Government!”, “Anarchy and self-organization!”. Active propaganda was launched among the population.

The main support of the anarchists was the 1st machine gun regiment. The regiment's barracks were not far from Durnovo's retreat, and the anarchists had great influence there. On July 2, a rally was held in the People's House under the leadership of the Bolshevik G. I. Petrovsky. The anarchists sought to win over the soldiers to their side. On the afternoon of July 3, on the initiative of soldier Golovin, who was a supporter of the anarchists, a regimental meeting was opened against the will of the regimental committee. Bleichman spoke from the anarchists at the rally. He urged "to take to the streets today, July 3rd, with weapons in hand, for a demonstration to overthrow ten capitalist ministers." Other anarchists spoke out, posing as representatives of the workers of the Putilov factory, Kronstadt sailors and soldiers from the front. They didn't have a specific plan. “The street will show the target,” they said. The anarchists also said that other factories were already ready to go. The Bolsheviks tried to stop the crowd, but the indignant soldiers did not listen to them. At the rally, a decision was made: to immediately go out into the street with weapons in their hands.

The machine gunners decided to draw the sailors of Kronstadt into the armed uprising and sent a delegation to them, which included the anarchist Pavlov. In the fortress, the delegation got to a meeting of the executive committee of the Council and asked for the support of the sailors in an armed uprising, but was refused. Then the delegates decided to turn directly to the sailors, where at that time the anarchist E. Yarchuk was giving a lecture on war and peace to a small audience (about 50 people). Arriving there, the anarchists issued calls for an immediate uprising. “Blood is already shed there, and the Kronstadters are sitting and lecturing,” they said. These speeches caused unrest among the sailors. Soon, 8-10 thousand people gathered on Anchor Square. The anarchists reported that the purpose of their uprising was to overthrow the Provisional Government. The excited crowd was looking forward to the performance. The Bolsheviks tried to stop the sailors from leaving for Petrograd, but they only succeeded in delaying it.

Delegations of machine gunners sent to many plants and factories, as well as to the military units of Petrograd, called on workers and soldiers to an armed uprising. The machine-gun regiment began to erect barricades. The machine gunners were followed by the Grenadier, Moscow and other regiments. By 9 pm on July 3, seven regiments had already left the barracks. They all moved to the Kshesinskaya mansion, where the Central Committee and the PC of the Bolshevik Party were located. Delegations from factories also reached out there. The Putilovites and the workers of the Vyborg side came out.

The whole demonstration went to the Tauride Palace. Among the slogans of the strikers were both Bolshevik slogans ("All power to the "Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies"") on red banners, and anarchist ones ("Down with the Provisional Government", "Long live anarchy!"). Nevsky Prospekt was filled with workers and revolutionary soldiers. There was a shooting that lasted no more than 10 minutes.

On July 4, the revolutionaries took to the streets again. At 12 noon, the Kronstadt sailors joined them. At least 500 thousand people took to the streets. They all rushed to the Tauride Palace. Government troops on Nevsky Prospekt opened fire. They also shot at Liteiny Prospekt, near the Tauride Palace and in other places. The dead and wounded began to appear. The demonstration went downhill.

The uprising of July 3-4, 17 ended in failure. Until October 1917, the anarchists calmed down, while continuing to conduct propaganda among the population.

On the eve of October 1917, the Bolsheviks did not fail to use the anarchists as a destructive force, assisting them with weapons, food, and ammunition. The anarchists, having plunged into their native element of destruction and struggle, participated in armed clashes in Petrograd, Moscow, Irkutsk and other cities.

After the October events, some anarchists partially changed their previous views and went over to the side of the Bolsheviks. Among them are such famous people as Chapaev, Anatoly Zheleznyakov, who dispersed the constituent assembly, Dmitry Furmanov and Grigory Kotovsky. Some anarchists were members of the main Bolshevik revolutionary organizations: the Petrograd Soviet, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets.

However, the coming of the Bolsheviks to power was met with hostility by many anarchists. Literally from the first hours, the anarchists began to disagree with the Bolsheviks. Having previously advocated for the Soviets, the anarchists hastened to dissociate themselves from this organizational form of power. Others, recognizing Soviet power, were against the creation of a centralized government.

Anarchists still advocated the continuation of the revolution. They were not satisfied with the results of the October Revolution, which overthrew the power of the bourgeoisie, but established the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the view of anarchists, the transition from capitalism to communism, and then to anarchy, should not be a long process, it takes only a few days. The transition was conceived as an "explosion", one "big leap". Based on this project of theirs, the anarchists proclaimed a course towards the transition to communism. “The struggle for the communist system must begin immediately,” wrote A. Ge.

Anarchists put forward the slogan of a "third revolution". In their opinion, the following came out: the February Revolution overthrew the autocracy, the power of the landlords; October - the Provisional Government, the power of the bourgeoisie; and the new, "third" one must overthrow the Soviet power, the power of the working class, and abolish the state in general, i.e., liquidate the state of the proletarian dictatorship.

Anarchists also opposed the ratification of the Brest peace. They declared their disagreement with the Bolsheviks, while emphasizing in every possible way the difference between their position and the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik ones. The resolution of the anarchists proposed to reject the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk "as an act of conciliation, and ... practically and in principle incompatible with the dignity and interests of the Russian and world revolution." Brest further divided the anarchists into supporters and opponents of the October Revolution. Some recognized the need for measures taken by the Bolsheviks to save the revolution, and took the path of cooperation with the Soviet government. Others, on the contrary, were preparing to fight the Soviet regime, creating detachments of the "black guard".

The Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups in the winter of 1917-1918 seized several dozen merchant mansions, which turned into "Houses of Anarchy" - clubs, lecture halls, libraries, printing houses were set up there, "Black Guard" detachments were based, numbering three to four thousand fighters. The Union of Anarchist Propaganda and the rapidly growing youth anarchist organizations and unions launched a wide agitation activity.

In the front-line cities of Kursk, Voronezh, Yekaterinoslav, the anarchists came out with weapons in their hands. Raids and expropriations of mansions became more frequent in Moscow. Although the leaders of the anarchists have repeatedly stated that "no action against the Soviets will be allowed," the threat of the action of the "black guard" detachments was obvious.

Anarchists fought against the dictatorship of the proletariat for such ideals of the revolution as the transfer of land to peasants and factories - to workers (and not to the state), the creation of free non-party Soviets (not hierarchical authorities, but based on the principle of delegating organs of people's self-government), general arming of the people, etc. . Therefore, the anarchists were very resolutely opposed to the "white" counter-revolution.

Many criminals penetrated the environment of anarchists, who understood the ideas of anarchism in an extremely vulgar way. Spontaneous anarchism also arose, engulfing a part of the soldiers and sailors of the decaying old army, who sometimes turned into ordinary bandit groups operating under the flag of anarchism.

Since the middle of 1918, the Russian anarchist movement has been going through a period of splits, interspersed with temporary associations of individual groups.

The Moscow Federation of Anarchist Groups was dissolved in April 1918. On its basis, the Union of Anarchist-Syndicalist Communists, the Union of Moscow Anarchists and the so-called First Central Sociotechnical School arose. The program of activity of the anarchists, regardless of their shades, increasingly assumed an anti-Bolshevik content and form. The main criticism was directed against the construction of the Soviet state. Some anarchists, recognizing the idea of ​​a transitional period in the form of a Republic of Soviets, invested in it a stateless content. “Free Voice of Labor”, an organ of anarchist-syndicalists, defined the task as follows: “... The Republic of Soviets, that is, the dispersion of power over local Soviets, communities (urban and rural communes), the organization of free Soviet cities and villages, their federation through the Soviets - that’s the task of the anarcho-syndicalists in the coming communal revolution." The anarchists considered the organization of management to be generally necessary: ​​with this they associated the electoral principle, but not in the form of representation, which they considered a bourgeois offspring, but in the form of delegation - “free councils”, which establish connections on the principles of federation, without any centralizing principle. .

The slogan of a “third revolution”—against the “party of stagnation and reaction” (as they dubbed the Bolshevik Party)—would increasingly grip members of anarchist organizations. Like the Left SRs, they accused the Bolsheviks of "dividing the working people into two hostile camps" and "inciting the workers to crusade into the countryside."

Anarchist-communists took an active part in the development of the economic transformation of society. Common to them was the thesis about the economic failure of the Bolsheviks because of their commitment to the methods of political violence and the removal of workers from the management of production. Anarchist communists justified their own concept of "economic labor revolution" as opposed to the workers' control of the Bolsheviks, the concept of socialization instead of Bolshevik nationalization.

At the same time, not all anarchist leaders were so unambiguous about the policy of the Bolsheviks.

At the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, representatives of the anarchists assessed the food policy of the Council of People's Commissars as an attempt "to get closer to the peasant poor ... to awaken their independence and organize them." This group of "Soviet anarchists" began to help the Bolsheviks in building a socialist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat was supported by a section of anarchist-syndicalists.

During 1918 - 1919. anarchists sought to organize their forces and expand their social base. They tried to achieve this by diametrically opposed means. On the one hand, cooperation, albeit inconsistent, with the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, in March 1919, together with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, they tried to provoke workers' strikes. At the end of March 1919, the Central Committee of the RCP(b) decided on measures to combat such activities: a number of anarchist publications were closed, some of their leaders were arrested. On June 13, at a meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), it was decided to allow the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee to personally release those arrested in some cases. Anarchist leaders were also released on bail. Most of the anarchists switched to the positions of "active terror" and armed struggle against the Soviet regime.

The most striking episode of the civil war in Russia, associated with the anarchist movement, of course, was the activity of the Insurrectionary Army led by N.I. Makhno. The peasant movement in Ukraine was broader than anarchism itself, although the leaders of the movement used anarchist ideology.

The roots of the Makhnovshchina lie in the insurrectionary movement of the Ukrainian people against the German occupation and the Hetmanate. It originated in the spring of 1918 in the form of partisan detachments fighting the Germans, Austrians and the hetman's "sovereign Varta". Makhno also belonged to one of these detachments in the Gulyai-Polsky district of the Yekaterinoslav province.

Nestor Ivanovich Makhno (Mikhnenko) was born into a peasant family in the Ukrainian village of Gulyai-Pole, Zaporozhye region, in 1888. He graduated from the Gulyai-Polskaya elementary school (1897). Since 1903, he worked at the iron foundry of M. Kerner in Gulyai-Pole. From the end of August - the beginning of September 1906, he was a member of the Youth Circle of the Ukrainian Anarchist-Communist Grain Growers Group, which operated in Gulyai-Pole. Participated in several robberies on behalf of communist anarchists. He was arrested several times, was imprisoned, and in 1908 was sentenced to death, which was then replaced by indefinite hard labor. The following year, he was transferred to the hard labor department of the Butyrskaya prison in Moscow. In the cell, Makhno met the famous anarchist activist, former Bolshevik Pyotr Arshinov, who would become a significant figure in the history of the Makhnovshchina in the future. Arshinov took up the ideological preparation of Makhno.

After the February Revolution, Makhno, like many other prisoners, both political and criminal, was released early from prison and returned to Gulyai-Polye. There he was elected deputy chairman of the volost zemstvo. Soon he created the Black Guard group, and with its help established a personal dictatorship in the village. Makhno considered dictatorship a necessary form of government for the final victory of the revolution and declared that “if possible, we must throw out the bourgeoisie and take positions with our people”.

In March 1917, Makhno became chairman of the Gulyai-Pole Peasants' Union. He advocated immediate radical revolutionary changes, before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. In June 1917, at the initiative of Makhno, workers' control was established at the enterprises of the village; in July, with the support of supporters, Makhno dispersed the former composition of the zemstvo, held new elections, became chairman of the zemstvo, and at the same time declared himself commissar of the Gulyai-Polsky district. In August 1917, at the initiative of Makhno, a committee of laborers was created at the Gulyai-Pol Soviet of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, whose activities were directed against the local landowners; in the same month he was elected a delegate to the provincial congress of the Peasants' Union in Yekaterinoslav.

In the summer of 1917, Makhno headed the "committee for the salvation of the revolution", disarmed the landowners and the bourgeoisie in the region. At the district Congress of Soviets (mid-August 1917) he was elected chairman and, together with other anarchists, called on the peasants to ignore the orders of the Provisional Government and the Central Rada, proposed “Immediately take away church and landlord land and organize a free agricultural commune on estates, if possible with the participation of the landlords and kulaks themselves in these communes”.

On September 25, 1917, Makhno signed a decree of the district council on the nationalization of the land and its division among the peasants. From December 1 to December 5, 1917, in Yekaterinoslav, Makhno took part in the work of the provincial congress of Soviets of workers', peasants' and soldiers' deputies, as a delegate from the Gulyai-Polye Soviet; supported the demand of the majority of delegates to convene the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets; elected to the judicial commission of the Alexander Revolutionary Committee to consider the cases of persons arrested by the Soviet government. Soon after the arrests of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, he began to express dissatisfaction with the actions of the judicial commission, proposed to blow up the city prison and release the arrested. He reacted negatively to the elections to the Constituent Assembly, called the current situation a “card game”: “The parties will not serve the people, but the people will serve the parties. Already now ... only his name is mentioned in the affairs of the people, and the affairs of the party are decided.. Not having received support in the Revolutionary Committee, he left its composition. After the capture of Yekaterinoslav by the forces of the Central Rada (December 1917), he initiated an emergency congress of Soviets of the Gulyai-Pole region, which passed a resolution demanding the "death of the Central Rada" and spoke in favor of organizing the forces opposing it. January 4, 1918 resigned as chairman of the Council, decided to take an active position in the fight against the opponents of the revolution. He welcomed the victory of the revolutionary forces in Yekaterinoslav. Soon he headed the Gulyai-Polye Revolutionary Committee, created from representatives of anarchists, left SRs and Ukrainian socialist revolutionaries.

The anarchist influence on the insurgent movement of Makhno increased significantly due to the appearance among the rebels of visiting anarchists of various directions. The highest command positions in Makhno's rebel army were occupied by the most prominent anarchists. V.M. Volin was at the head of the Revolutionary Military Council, P.A. Arshinov headed the cultural education department and edited the newspapers of the Makhnovists. V.M. Volin, one might say, was the main theoretician, and Arshinov was the political leader of the Makhnovshchina. Influencing the views of Makhno, they determined the goals and objectives of the insurrection. Nestor Makhno himself, more than other anarchists, was subject to the idea of ​​anarchy and never retreated from it. An alliance with the Bolsheviks was seen by them as a tactical necessity. The agreement concluded with the Bolsheviks of Yekaterinoslav on the joint struggle against the Petliurists in December 1918 was carried out very inconsistently. Having driven the Petliurists out of the city, the Makhnovist army showed itself in all its anarchist "brilliance". Prominent anarchists in Makhno's army did not disdain using their "official" position for personal enrichment.

In July 1918 Makhno met with Lenin and Sverdlov. To the latter, Makhno introduced himself as an anarchist-communist of the Bakunin-Kropotkin persuasion. Makhno later recalled that Lenin, pointing to the fanaticism and short-sightedness of the anarchists, noted at the same time that he considers Makhno himself "a man of reality and ebullition of the day" and if there were at least one third of such anarchist-communists in Russia, then the communists willing to work with them. According to Makhno, Lenin tried to convince him that the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the anarchists was not so hostile and was largely due to the behavior of the anarchists themselves. “I felt that I was beginning to revere Lenin, whom I recently confidently considered responsible for the destruction of anarchist organizations in Moscow,” writes Makhno. In the end, both came to the conclusion that it was impossible to fight the enemies of the revolution without sufficient organization of the masses and firm discipline.

However, immediately after this conversation, Makhno called on his comrades in Gulyai-Pole to "destroy the slave system", to live freely and "independently of the state and its officials, even if they are red." Thus, with any hesitation, Makhno, as a rule, took the side of anarchism. Makhno came close to the Bolsheviks and was ready to completely merge with them, but the influence of anarchism on his worldview and psychology remained predominant.

In January-February 1919, Makhno organized a series of pogroms of German colonists in the Gulyai-Pole area, interfered with the activities of the Soviet government aimed at class split in the countryside (“committees of the poor”, surplus appraisal); urged the peasants to put into practice the idea of ​​"equal land tenure based on their own labor".

In February 1919, Makhno convened the 2nd District Congress of Gulyai-Pole Soviets. The congress resolution gave the same assessment to the White Guards, the imperialists, the Soviet government, the Petliurists and the Bolsheviks, who were accused of conciliating with imperialism.

The Makhnovist detachments united heterogeneous elements, including a small percentage of workers. Under the influence, first of all, of anarchism, the Makhnovshchina was a politically loose movement. In essence, it was a movement of peasant revolutionism. The position of the Makhnovists on the land issue was quite definite: the 2nd District Congress of Soviets spoke out against the state farms decreed by the Ukrainian Soviet government, demanded the transfer of land to the peasants on an equalizing basis. Nestor Makhno called himself a peasant leader.

In the context of the offensive of the troops of General A. I. Denikin to Ukraine in mid-February 1919, Makhno concluded a military agreement with the command of the Red Army and on February 21, 1919 became the commander of the 3rd brigade of the 1st Zadneprovskaya division, which fought against Denikin's troops on the Mariupol- Volnovakha.

For the raid on Mariupol on March 27, 1919, which slowed down the Whites' advance on Moscow, brigade commander Makhno was awarded the Order of the Red Banner, number 4.

Nestor Ivanovich repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the emergency policy of the Soviet government in the liberated areas. On April 10, 1919, at the 3rd District Congress of Soviets of the Gulyai-Polsky District, he was elected honorary chairman; in his speech, he stated that the Soviet government had betrayed the "October principles", and the Communist Party legitimized the government and "protected itself with emergency measures." Makhno signed a resolution of the congress, which expressed disapproval of the decisions of the 3rd All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets (March 1919) on the land issue (on the nationalization of land), a protest against the Cheka and the policies of the Bolsheviks, a demand for the removal of all persons appointed by the Bolsheviks from military and civilian posts; at the same time, the Makhnovists demanded the "socialization" of land, factories and plants; food policy changes; freedom of speech, press and assembly to all left-wing parties and groups; personal integrity; abandoning the dictatorship of the communist party; freedom of elections to the Soviets of Working Peasants and Workers.

From April 15, 1919, Makhno led a brigade as part of the 1st Ukrainian Soviet Army. After the beginning of the rebellion of the commander of the Red Army N. A. Grigoriev (May 7), Makhno took a wait-and-see position, then took the side of the Red Army and personally shot Grigoriev. In May 1919, at a meeting of rebel commanders in Mariupol, Makhno supported the initiative to create a separate rebel army.

The population supported Makhno because he fought for things that every peasant understood: for land and freedom, for people's self-government based on a federation of non-party Soviets.

Makhno did not allow Jewish pogroms on his territory (which were then a common thing in territories controlled by the Petliurists or Grigorievites), severely punished marauders and, relying on the bulk of the peasantry, was harsh with the landowners and the kulaks. The Makhnovsky district was a relatively free place: political agitation of all socialist parties and groups was allowed in it: from the Bolsheviks to the Socialist Revolutionaries. Makhnovsky district was perhaps the most "free economic zone", where there were various forms of land use (of course, except for the landowners) - and communes, and cooperatives, and private labor peasant farms (without the use of farm laborers).

In the literature one can find striking characteristics of anarchist leaders. Before us appear very colorful figures of prominent anarchists.

For example, as A. Vetlugin describes, A. L. Gordin - "a little lame man ... surpassed both Martov and Bukharin, the first - by ugliness, the second - by anger." Deadly aptly said about him A.A. Borovoy: “Gordin, of course, is the Russian Marat, but Charlotte Corday is not afraid of him, because he never takes a bath! ..” He spat on everyone and everything. Kropotkin and Lenin, Longuet and Brusilov, allied ambassadors and Swiss socialists, owners of printing houses and General Mannerheim. Money was needed - and Gordin, without a moment's hesitation, organizes raids on private apartments ...

The most impromptu, most conscious, internally justified, perhaps ennobled was the anarchism of Lev Cherny. In his younger years he was close to the Marxists... Disillusioned with the socialist idea, Cherny did not believe in the goodness of any power, but even anarchy did not deceive him in its idealism. Sometimes it seemed that, first of all, he wanted to persuade himself ... Gordin - the commander in chief; Barmash - tribune; Leo Black - conscience. Wisdom and erudition were represented by Alexei Solonovich, a pupil of the old world, at the age of twenty he was a novice of the Svyatogorsk monastery, at twenty-six he was a Privatdozent of Moscow University at the Department of Mathematics.

Thus, during the years of the Civil War, anarchism experienced a painful process of disengagement and, as a result, organizational splits, which led to a change in political orientation: a transition to pro-Bolshevik positions or going to the camp of anti-Bolshevik forces, with all the ensuing consequences.

Among the variety of terms that we use when talking about the world around us, there is one that was born during the years of the Civil War and has survived to this day, but has received a completely different meaning. This is the green movement. In ancient times, this was the name given to the insurrectionary actions of peasants who defended their rights with weapons in their hands. Today, this is the name given to communities of people who protect the rights of the nature around us.

Russian peasantry in the post-revolutionary years

The "green" movement during the years of the Civil War is the mass demonstrations of the peasants, directed against the main contenders for seizing power in the country - the Bolsheviks, the White Guards and foreign interventionists. As a rule, they saw free Soviets as the governing bodies of the state, formed as a result of the independent expression of the will of all citizens and alien to any form of appointment from above.

The "green" movement was of great importance during the war, if only because its main force - the peasants - made up the majority of the country's population. The course of the Civil War as a whole often depended on which of the warring parties they would support. This was well understood by all the participants in the hostilities and, to the best of their ability, they tried to win over the many millions of peasant masses to their side. However, this was not always successful, and then the confrontation took extreme forms.

The negative attitude of the villagers towards the Bolsheviks and the Whites

Thus, for example, in the Central part of Russia the attitude of the peasants towards the Bolsheviks was ambivalent. On the one hand, they supported them after the well-known decree on land, which assigned landowners' land to the peasants, on the other hand, wealthy peasants and most of the middle peasants opposed the food policy of the Bolsheviks and the forced seizure of agricultural products. This duality was reflected in the course of the Civil War.

Socially alien to the peasants, the White Guard movement also rarely found support from them. Despite the fact that many villagers served in the ranks, most of them were recruited by force. This is evidenced by numerous memoirs of participants in those events. In addition, the White Guards often forced the peasants to perform various household duties, without compensating for the time and effort expended. This also caused resentment.

Peasant uprisings caused by the surplus appraisal

The "green" movement in the Civil War, directed against the Bolsheviks, as already mentioned, was caused mainly by dissatisfaction with the policy of the surplus appraisal, which doomed thousands of peasant families to starvation. It is no coincidence that the main heat of passions fell on the year 1919-1920, when the forced seizure of agricultural products took on the widest scale.

Among the most active actions directed against the Bolsheviks, one can name the "green" movement in Stavropol, which began in April 1918, and the mass uprising of peasants in the Volga region that followed a year later. According to some reports, up to 180,000 people took part in it. In general, in the first half of 1019, there were 340 armed uprisings, covering more than twenty provinces.

Social Revolutionaries and their Third Way program

During the years of the Civil War, representatives of the Mensheviks also tried to use the "Green" movement for their political purposes. They worked out a joint tactic of struggle aimed at two fronts. They declared their opponents both the Bolsheviks and A. V. Kolchak and A. I. Denikin. This program was called the "Third Way" and was, they say, a struggle against reaction from the left and right. However, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, far from the peasant masses, were unable to unite significant forces around themselves.

Peasant army of Nestor Makhno

The slogan proclaiming the "third way" gained the greatest popularity in Ukraine, where the peasant rebel army under the command of N. I. Makhno fought for a long time. It is noted that its main backbone was made up of wealthy peasants who were successfully engaged in agriculture and traded in bread.

They were actively involved in the redistribution of the landlords' land and had high hopes for it. As a result, it was their farms that became the objects of numerous requisitions carried out alternately by the Bolsheviks, the White Guards and the interventionists. The "green" movement that spontaneously arose in Ukraine was a reaction to such lawlessness.

The special character of Makhno's army was given by anarchism, the adherents of which were both the commander-in-chief himself and most of his commanders. In this idea, the most attractive was the theory of "social" revolution, which destroys all state power and thus eliminates the main instrument of violence against the individual. The main tenet of Makhno's program was popular self-government and the rejection of any form of diktat.

Popular movement under the leadership of A. S. Antonov

No less powerful and large-scale movement of the "greens" was observed in the Tambov province and in the Volga region. By the name of its leader, it received the name "Antonovshchina". As early as September 1917, the peasants in these areas took control of the landowners' lands and began to actively develop them. Accordingly, their standard of living rose, and a favorable prospect opened up ahead. When, in 1919, a large-scale surplus appropriation began, and the fruits of their labor began to be taken away from people, this caused the sharpest reaction and forced the peasants to take up arms. They had something to protect.

The struggle took on a special intensity in 1920, when a severe drought occurred in the Tambov region, which destroyed most of the crop. In these difficult conditions, what nevertheless managed to be collected was seized in favor of the Red Army and the townspeople. As a result of such actions of the authorities, a popular uprising broke out that engulfed several counties. About 4,000 armed peasants and more than 10,000 people with pitchforks and scythes took part in it. The leader and inspirer was a member of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party A.

The defeat of Antonovshchina

He, like other leaders of the "green" movement, put forward clear and simple slogans, understandable to every villager. Chief among them was the call to fight the communists in order to build a free peasant republic. We should pay tribute to his commanding abilities and the ability to conduct a flexible guerrilla war.

As a result, the uprising soon spread to other areas and took on an even larger scale. It cost the Bolshevik government great efforts to suppress it in 1921. For this purpose, units removed from the Denikin Front, led by M.N. Tukhachevsky and G.I. Kotovsky, were sent to the Tambov region.

Modern social movement "Greens"

The battles of the Civil War died down, and the events described above are a thing of the past. Much of that era has sunk into oblivion forever, but an amazing thing is that the term “Green Movement” has been preserved in our everyday life, although it has acquired a completely different meaning. If at the beginning of the last century this phrase meant a struggle for the interests of those who cultivated the land, then today the participants in the movement are fighting for the preservation of the land itself with all its natural wealth.

"Green" - the ecological movement of our time, which opposes the harmful effects of the negative factors of technological progress on the environment. In our country, they appeared in the mid-eighties of the last century and have gone through several stages of development in their history. According to data published at the end of last year, the number of environmental groups included in the all-Russian movement reaches thirty thousand.

Leading NGO

Among the most famous are the movement "Green Russia", "Motherland", "Green Patrol" and a number of other organizations. Each of them has its own characteristics, but all of them are united by a common task and the mass enthusiasm that is inherent in their members. In general, this sector of society exists in the form of a non-governmental organization. It is a kind of third sector, not related to either government agencies or private business.

The political platform of representatives of modern "green" movements is based on a constructive approach to the restructuring of the state's economic policy in order to harmoniously combine the interests of people and their natural environment. There can be no compromises in such issues, since not only the material well-being of people, but also their health and life depends on their solution.

The latest research on the history of Russia

The Latest Studies in the History of Russia series was founded in 2016.

Design by the artist E.Yu. Shurlapova

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 16-41-93579)

Introduction

Revolution and internecine strife are always very flowery, in every sense of the word. Vivid vocabulary, aggressive jargon, expressive names and self-names, a real feast of slogans, banners, speeches and banners. Suffice it to recall the names of the parts, for example, in the American Civil War. The southerners had "Lincoln assassins", all kinds of "bulldogs", "threshers", "yellow jackets", etc., the northerners had a grandiose sinister anaconda plan. The civil war in Russia could not be an exception, especially since in a country just approaching universal schooling, visual perception and marking meant a lot. No wonder the romantics of the world revolution expected so much from the cinema. An incredibly expressive and understandable language has been found! The sound once again killed the aggressively revolutionary dream: the films began to speak in different languages, the dialogue replaced the irresistible power of the living poster.

Already in the revolutionary months of 1917, the banners of shock units and death units provided such expressive material that an interesting candidate's dissertation was successfully defended on them. It happened that a unit with the most modest real combat strength had a bright banner.

The autumn of 1917 finally determined the names of the main characters - the Reds and the Whites. The Red Guard, and soon the army was opposed by the Whites - the White Guards. The name "White Guard" itself is believed to have been adopted by one of the detachments in the Moscow battles in late October - early November. Although the logic of the development of the revolution suggested an answer even without this initiative. Red has long been the color of rebellion, revolution, barricades. White is the color of order, law, purity. Although the history of revolutions knows other combinations. In France, white and blue fought, under this name one of the novels by A. Dumas from his revolutionary series came out. The blue semi-brigades became the symbol of the victorious young revolutionary French army.

In the picture of the unfolding Civil War in Russia, along with the "basic" colors, others were woven. Anarchist detachments called themselves the Black Guard. Thousands of Black Guards fought in the southern direction in 1918, being very wary of their red comrades. Until the fights of the early 1930s, the self-name of the rebels "black partisans" appeared. In the Orenburg region, even the Blue Army is known among many insurgent anti-Bolshevik formations. "Colored", almost officially, will be called the most cohesive and combat-ready white units in the South - the famous Kornilovites, Alekseyevites, Markovites and Drozdovites. They got their name from the color of their shoulder straps.

Color markings were also actively used in propaganda. In the leaflet of the headquarters of the recreated North Caucasian Military District in the spring of 1920, “yellow bandits” stood out - these are the sons of offended kulaks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, fathers, Makhnovists, Maslaks, Antonovites and other comrades-in-arms and hangers-on of the bourgeois counter-revolution, bandits “black”, "white", "brown" 2 .

However, the most famous third color in the Civil War remained green. The Greens became a significant force at some stages of the Civil War. Depending on the inclination of specific green formations to support one or another "official" side, white-green or red-green appeared. Although these designations could only fix a temporary, momentary tactical line or behavior dictated by circumstances, and not a clear political position.

A civil war in a large country invariably creates some main subjects of confrontation and a significant number of intermediate or peripheral forces. For example, the American Civil War drew the Indian population into its orbit, Indian formations appeared both on the side of the northerners and on the side of the southerners; there were states that were neutral. Many colors were also indicated in civil wars, for example, in multinational Spain in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the Civil War in Russia, the main subjects of confrontation crystallized rather quickly. However, within the white and red camps, there were often very serious contradictions, not even so much of a political nature as at the level of political emotions. The Red partisans did not tolerate commissars, the White Cossacks did not trust the officers, etc. In addition, new state formations were structured with more or less success on the national outskirts, striving primarily to acquire their own armed forces. All this made the overall picture of the struggle extremely variegated and dynamically changing. Finally, always active minorities fight, they rouse broader masses of fellow citizens. In peasant (and landslide re-peasantization in 1917-1920 due to land redistribution and rapid deindustrialization) Russia, the main character in any lengthy struggle was the peasant. Therefore, the peasant in the armies of the opposing sides, in the rebels, in the deserters - in any state created by a large-scale internal war - already showed a very significant value by his mass character alone. The Greens became one of the forms of peasant participation in the events of the Civil War.

The Greens had obvious antecedents. The peasant always suffers from war, often drawn into it out of necessity, either incurring a duty in favor of the state, or in defending his home. If we dare to make far-flung analogies, we can recall how the military successes of the French during the Hundred Years War in the 1360s and 1370s grew out of the need for self-defense and the emerging national feeling. and in the era of Joan of Arc, successes and innovations in the military art of the Dutch gezes at the end of the 16th century with their “transfer” through the Swedes to the Russian militias of the Time of Troubles, led by M. Skopin-Shuisky. However, the era of modern times has already separated the combat capabilities of the regular army and any improvised rebel formations too far. Probably, this situation was most clearly demonstrated by the epic of clobmen - "clubmen" - during the years of civil wars in England in the 17th century.

Cavalier royalists fought the parliamentary armies. The fight was fought with varying success. However, any internal war primarily hits the non-belligerents. The intemperate armies of both sides laid a heavy burden on the peasant population. In response, the cudgels rose. The movement was not widespread. It was located in several counties. In the domestic literature, the most detailed presentation of this epic remains the long-standing work of Professor S.I. Arkhangelsk.

The activity of klobmen is one of the stages in the development of the peasant movement in England during the civil wars of the 17th century. The peak of development of this self-defense movement came in the spring - autumn of 1645, although evidence of local armed formations is known almost from the beginning of hostilities, as well as later, outside of 1645.

The relationship between the armed peasants and the main active forces of civil strife - gentlemen and supporters of parliament is indicative. Let's highlight some plots that are interesting for our topic.

Clobmen are mostly villagers who have organized to resist looting and enforce peace on opposing sides.

Klobmeny had their own territory - this is primarily the counties of South-West England and Wales. These territories mostly stood for the king. At the same time, the movement also spread beyond the base territory, covering, at its peak, more than a quarter of the territory of England. Klobmen seemed to "not notice" the Civil War, expressing their readiness to feed any garrisons so that they would not act outrageously, expressing in petitions reverence for the royal power and respect for parliament. At the same time, the excesses of the troops caused a rebuff, and sometimes quite effective. Ordinary klobmen were mostly rural residents, although nobles, priests, and a significant number of townspeople are found in their leadership. In different counties there were different moods and motivations to participate in the Clobmen movement. This is due to the difference in socio-economic status. Everyone suffered from the war, but patriarchal Wales and the economically developed, woolen counties of England paint a different picture.

In 1645 there were about 50,000 clobmen. This number exceeded the royal armed forces - about 40 thousand, and slightly inferior to the parliamentary (60-70 thousand).

It is interesting that both the king and parliament tried to win the clubmen over to their side. First of all, there were promises to curb the predatory inclinations of the troops. At the same time, both sides sought to destroy the klobman organization. Both the Chevalier Lord Goring and the Parliamentary general Fairfax alike forbade Clobmen meetings. Apparently, the understanding that klobmen, in their further development, are capable of growing into some kind of third force, existed both on the side of the king and on the side of parliament, and caused opposition. Both needed a resource, not an ally with their own interests.

It is believed that by the end of 1645 the movement of klobmen was largely eliminated by the efforts of parliamentary troops under the command of Fairfax. At the same time, organizations of many thousands, even relatively weakly structured ones, could not disappear overnight. Indeed, already in the spring of 1649, at a new stage in the mass movement, a case was recorded of the arrival of an impressive detachment of clobmen from the county of Somerset to help the Levellers 3 .

For all the riskiness of analogies in three centuries, we note the plots themselves, which are similar in the civil wars in England and Russia. First, the grassroots mass movement is inclined towards a certain independence, although it is quite ready to listen to both "main" sides of the struggle. Secondly, it is territorially localized, although it tends to expand into neighboring territories. Thirdly, local interests prevail in motives, primarily the tasks of self-defense from ruin and excesses. Fourthly, it is the real or potential independence of the insurgent movement that causes concern of the main active forces of the civil war and the desire to liquidate it or integrate it into their armed structures.

Finally, the Russian Civil War unfolded when a great civil strife with active peasant participation was burning out on another continent - in Mexico. A comparative study of the civil war in an American country and in Russia has obvious scientific prospects. In fact, the activities of the peasant armies of Zapata and Villa provide rich and picturesque material for the study of the insurgent peasantry. However, it is more important for us that this analogy was already visible to contemporaries. The well-known publicist V. Vetlugin in 1919 wrote about “Mexican Ukraine” in the white press, the image of Mexico also appears in his book of essays “Adventurers of the Civil War”, published in 1921. evoked such associations. True, in the "green" areas of "Mexico" there were relatively few, this is more an affiliation of the steppe chieftain.

As early as 1919, the term "political banditry" appeared in the RSFSR to designate insurrection and anti-Bolshevik insurrectionary struggle, which became firmly and permanently included in historiography. At the same time, the main subject of this banditry was the kulaks. This evaluation standard was extended to situations of other civil wars, as a result of which the communists came to power. Thus, a book on the history of China published in the USSR in 1951 reported that in 1949 there were still a million "Kuomintang bandits" in the PRC. But by the first anniversary of the republic, the number of "bandits" had dropped to 200,000 4 . In the years of perestroika, this story caused controversy: “rebels” or “bandits”? The propensity for one or another designation determined the research and civic position of the writer.

The "big" civil war did not arouse as much attention among analysts of the Russian diaspora as the initial volunteer period. This is clearly seen in the well-known works of N.N. Golovin and A.A. Zaitsov. Accordingly, the green movement was not in the focus of attention. It is significant that the late Soviet book about the red partisans has nothing to do with the green movement, even the red-green one. At the same time, for example, in the Belarusian provinces, the maximum number, which hardly corresponds to reality, of partisans of a communist orientation is shown 5 . In a recent fundamental attempt to present a non-communist view of Russian history 6, the green movement is also not specifically singled out.

The green movement is sometimes interpreted as broadly as possible, as any armed struggle within the framework of the Civil War outside the white, red and national formations. So, A.A. Shtyrbul writes about "a broad and numerous, albeit scattered, all-Russian partisan-insurgent movement of the greens." He draws attention to the fact that anarchists played a significant role in this movement, and also to the fact that for the majority of representatives of this environment, whites were “more unacceptable” than reds. N. Makhno 7 is cited as an example. R.V. Daniele made an attempt to give a comparative analysis of civil wars and their dynamics. In his opinion, the Russian revolutionary peasantry, alienated by the policy of requisitioning, "became a free political force in many parts of the country", opposing the Whites and the Reds, and this situation was most dramatically manifested in Nestor Makhno's "Green Movement" in Ukraine. M.A. Drobov considers the military aspects of partisanship and small war. He analyzes in detail the red insurrection of the Civil War. The Greens for him are primarily an anti-White Guard force. “Among the “greens” it is necessary to distinguish between bandit gangs, self-seekers, various types of criminal punks who had nothing to do with the insurrection, and groups of poor peasants and workers scattered by whites and interventionists. It was these last elements ... having no connection either with the Red Army or with the party organization, independently organized detachments with the aim of harming the whites at every opportunity. M. Frenkin writes about the operations of the Greens in Syzran and other counties of the Simbirsk province, in a number of counties of Nizhny Novgorod and Smolensk, in the Kazan and Ryazan provinces, and clusters of Greens in Belarus with its vast forest and swampy areas 10 . At the same time, the name "green" for, for example, the Kazan or Simbirsk regions is uncharacteristic. An expanded understanding of the green movement is also inherent in historical journalism 11 .

T.V. played an important role in the study of peasant participation in the Civil War. Osipov. She was one of the first to raise the subject of the subjectivity of the peasantry in the internecine war 12 . In subsequent works by this author 13 a picture of peasant participation in the revolutionary and military events of 1917–1920 is developed. T.V. Osipova focused on the fact that the protest movement of the Great Russian peasantry was not noticed in Western literature, but it was, and was massive.

The well-known essay on peasant uprisings by M. Frenkin, of course, also concerns the theme of the Greens. He quite correctly assesses the green movement as a specific form of peasant struggle that appeared in 1919, that is, as a kind of innovation in the peasant struggle with power. With this movement, he connects the active work of the peasants in the destruction of Soviet farms during the Mamontov raid 14 . M. Frenkin is right from the point of view of the general logic of the peasant struggle. At the same time, one should carefully accept his value judgments about the unchanged multi-thousand greens. At times, conscious distortions in this matter have given rise to a whole tradition of incorrect perception. So, E.G. Renev testified that the memoirs of Colonel Fedichkin about the Izhevsk-Botkin uprising, published in Abroad, were seriously edited by the editors of the publication with a deliberate distortion of the content. As a result, instead of peasant detachments of one hundred people who supported the workers' uprising in the Vyatka province, ten thousand detachments appeared in the publication 15 . M. Bernshtam, in his work, proceeded from the published version and counted active fighters on the side of the rebels, reaching up to a quarter of a million people 16 . On the other hand, a small active detachment could operate successfully with the total support and solidarity of the local population, sometimes quite an impressive neighborhood. Therefore, when counting insurgent, lightly armed and poorly organized (in the military sense of the word) forces, it may be appropriate to estimate not only the number of combatants, but also the total population involved in an uprising or other protest movement.

In 2002, two dissertations were defended on the military-political activity of the peasantry in the Civil War, specifically addressing the issues of the green movement. These are the works of V.L. Telitsyn and P.A. Pharmacist 17 . Each of them contains a separate plot dedicated to the "Zelenovshchina" of 1919. 18 The authors of these plots published 19 . P. Aptekar gives a general outline of the green uprisings, V. Telitsyn actively used Tver material.

Name

The name can be derived from the color of the forests in which the greens were grouped and hidden. The name "green" has entered the official lexicon and office documents of both red and white authorities. The "green" theme was played up in propaganda activities, fiction and journalistic literature.

Characteristic

Often, the greens are understood to be almost all irregular, insurgent-partisan formations that, to one degree or another, opposed the reds and whites, or at least existed independently of them. In this interpretation, bright representatives of the greens are, for example, or A. Antonov. However, such a broad interpretation seems to be incorrect and exists mainly in historical and journalistic writings.

In a narrower sense, the green movement is one of the ways of self-organization of the broad masses of the peasantry in the Civil War, focused on the protection of local resources and non-participation in the war, the causes and goals of which remained incomprehensible or alien. The green movement was not only an armed side of the general civil conflict, but also a way of building a parallel existence under state pressure.

Peak green movement

The year of the classic green movement is 1919, from spring to autumn (May-September), territorial coverage - mainly central industrial, northern and western provinces. These are territories that for most of the Civil War were under the rule of the Bolsheviks.

In 1920, the "green" name moved to the east, green formations appeared in the southern Urals.

The Bolsheviks, who came to power under the slogan of social emancipation and the end of the war, already in the summer of 1918 began to selectively use conscription into the newly created Red Army. In the autumn of 1918, the first big call followed, causing a wave of uprisings and mass evasion.

The calls continued, and the peasantry continued to respond with absenteeism or resistance. The Soviet state created an infrastructure for "pumping out" deserters from the countryside. These are the Central, provincial, district and in some places volost commissions for combating desertion, revolutionary military tribunals, a system of campaigning events, operating periodic amnesties for deserters. In June 1919, it was decided not to carry out further mobilizations, but to focus on the removal of deserters from the village. The efforts of the Soviet state in this direction provoked a relatively organized resistance of the peasantry, which resulted in the green insurrection of June - July 1919.

The mass base of the green movement was the equally massive desertion from the Red Army, as well as from some of the white armies. Deserters in the RSFSR were divided into "malicious" and "by weakness of will." With millions of cases of desertion (taking into account the frequent repeated desertion), about 200,000 malicious deserters formed the base of an active green and other rebellion.

In the center of the country

In mid-May 1919, a powerful insurgent wave called "Zelenovshchina" began from the Novokhopersky district of the Voronezh province. It covered the adjacent counties of the Voronezh, Saratov and Tambov provinces. The Greens disorganized the rear of the retreating Red 9th and 8th Armies of the Southern Front, causing the flight of local natives from the ranks of the Red Army. The main objects of hatred of the rebels were local communists and Soviet workers. Villages, often under pressure from neighbors who had already rebelled, joined the movement, formed detachments, headquarters, and appointed commandants. Deserter detachments became more active in the neighboring non-rebellious counties. The energetic punitive measures of the Reds and the change in the situation at the front extinguished the green movement in the region relatively quickly. A small part of the most active rebels joined the troops of the All-Union Socialist Republic, forming two "people's" regiments under the Don Army.

In the central provinces, the mass movement engulfed the Tver, Kostroma, and Yaroslavl provinces. Numerous desertions in June-July turned into an active anti-Bolshevik armed movement. It had an enclave character. Several significant centers arose in the Tver province. The largest was the Yasenovich uprising. In the Yaroslavl and Kostroma provinces, three of the largest centers were revealed: Uglich, Myshkin and Mologa districts; Poshekhonsky district and adjacent areas of the Rybinsk and Tutaevsky districts with further expansion to the adjacent districts of the Vologda province; Lyubimsky, partly Danilovsky counties with the transition to the Kostroma counties.

In the Kostroma province, the remote Urensky region also stood out (five volosts of the Varnavinsky district, now the territory of the Nizhny Novgorod region), which gave a long struggle, until 1922.

The Green Army, led by the Social Revolutionaries, arose at the same time in the south of the Nizhny Novgorod province. Its headquarters was in the forest near Surovatikha station. The headquarters structures of the "army" were defeated by the Chekists in the autumn of 1919.

North and Northwest

In the north, in conditions of a shortage of bread and hunger, the village was unable to support the greens with resources. Therefore, armed peasant detachments on the front line turned into white or red partisans, while showing a willingness to change the flag when moving the front line to their native places. In the rear of the Soviet Northern Front, the Greens were in the districts of the North Dvina, Vologda, Olonets, Arkhangelsk provinces.

An active green movement developed in the summer of 1919 in Pskov, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Minsk and other western provinces. Many green Pskov regions interacted with the white North-Western army, partially passed into its ranks. Just the Pskov greens became the basis for the "partisan" formations of S.N. Bulak-Balakhovich with specific concepts of discipline and prey.

There was no structured white movement on the territory of the Belarusian provinces, the power (Soviet, occupational German, Polish), state and administrative borders and names changed several times. Under these conditions, the peasant retreat into the green forests was reinforced by the efforts of the local intelligentsia to build national Belarusian power structures. Part of the activists of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries planned a coup in the Red Army units, which left some organizational traces. As a result, in the Western region, structures of resistance to Soviet power lasted until the mid-1920s. They accumulated within the framework of the Belarusian organization "Green Oak", the Savinka People's Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom, the structure of Bulak-Balakhovich, relying on the second department of the General Staff of the Polish Army. The mass basis of these organizations was the professionalized green cadres of 1919. In the Smolensk province, brothers, officers A., V. and K. Zhigalovs, played a significant role in the formation and organization of the green partisan movement.

Crimea, Kuban, Black Sea

In the white rear, peasants were called green, hiding from mobilizations and hunting for robbery. This is the Taganrog district of the Department of Internal Affairs, the most peasant in composition, the Black Sea province, from the autumn of 1919 onwards until the collapse of the All-Union Socialist Republic - the Kuban, and the mountains of the Southern Crimea. The Soviet underground and the military leadership sought to organize and politicize them, turning them into "red-greens".

After the establishment of Soviet power in the Crimea, in the Kuban, in the Black Sea region, a white-green movement unfolded, although it included not only and not so much peasant-deserter elements, but fragments of white formations, officers in hiding, in the Kuban - Cossacks, who again rose against the policy of the military communism.

Desertion and the Green Movement

Desertion from the Red Army was equally developed in all provinces, but the name "green" was not used everywhere. It is unknown in Siberia and the Far East, in the Middle Urals, it is not very common in the black earth provinces, in the middle Volga region, in Ukraine. Similar names in different regions were "partisans", "rebels", "rebel troops", names oriented to the figure of the leader, such as "Makhnovists", "Grigoryevtsy", "Antonovtsy", "Vakulintsy". This seems to be non-random. The green movement was localized mainly in the Great Russian non-agricultural provinces. This observation forms a space for studying it as a form of self-organization of the Great Russians in a crisis and state pressure. People's Socialist S.S. Maslov assessed the green movement as one of the ways of the social maturation of the Russian people, an attempt to organize themselves from below.

The green movement is also associated with the ideology and practice of the "third force" in the Civil War. However, it cannot be considered as such. The AKP tried to implement the position of the third force, but without a political result. The green movement was primarily self-defense, reciprocal, an attempt to arrange existence in the conditions of state aggression. Massive green protests had a powerful force, but a weak organizational potential.

"Green" cadres tried to use political forces: socialist-revolutionaries, whites and reds in the armed struggle. The Socialist-Revolutionary leadership of the insurgency in the Black Sea province created in the fall of 1919 the Committee for the Liberation of the Black Sea Province. However, reaching the political level very quickly led to the subordination of the armed forces of the Committee to the Bolsheviks and the loss of the local militia of the Black Sea itself. In 1920 - 1922 he hatched the idea of ​​a peasant war against the Bolsheviks, counting, in particular, on the numerous cadres of the green western provinces. However, militarily, the plan turned out to be fantastic. The Belarusian party "Green Oak" was forced to increasingly focus on Poland, trying to continue the anti-Bolshevik struggle in 1921-1922. and further. The more the green movement organized and came under external political leadership, the less "green" it became.

The most classic phenomena in the field of the green movement combine the external name - by the townsfolk, white and red military authorities - and the self-name of the rebels themselves.

Leaders

The military leaders of the greens were, as a rule, local natives who gained combat experience during the years of the Great War. Most of them were chief officers or non-commissioned officers. Two bright leaders can be singled out who commanded small organized formations after the end of the powerful wave of green uprisings in the spring and summer of 1919. These are Sergey Nikushin in the Ryazhsky district of the Ryazan province and Georgy Pashkov in the Lyubimsky district of the Yaroslavl province, on the border with Kostroma. Both of them reflected on their situation and their struggle and kept diaries, which are now published.

The green movement inevitably came into contact with other more or less mass actions and movements of the period of the Civil War: swindlers, criminals, movements in defense of the church, etc. It is known that the greens often fundamentally separated themselves from the criminals.

In military terms, the greens from the RSFSR opposed, in addition to structures to combat desertion, party and other volunteer detachments, local formations (guards, etc.); The most organized force was the troops of the VOKhR, later the VNUS, as well as the regular units of the Red Army.

During the suppression of green uprisings by the Reds, cruelty was manifested in the form of extrajudicial reprisals, burning of settlements (the village of Samet, Kostroma province, Malinovka, Saratov province, etc.)

The green movement is difficult to study because of its weak structure and the paucity of internal documentation. At the moment, there is a general outline of this movement, as well as a number of developed regional plots: Tver, Yaroslavl-Kostroma, Olonets, Prikhoper "Zelenovshchina", a number of modern studies on the problems of combating desertion from the Red Army during the Civil War.

Folklore

The Greens gave birth to their own folklore, mostly ditty. In the press and agitation, whites and red greens were portrayed derogatoryly. The deserter and the green, like a dark, confused worker, are an invariable character in Soviet propaganda literature. This topic was touched upon in their work, for example, and.